Do we really think just because Coin A sells for X that Coin B is now worth X+?
They are different coins and might well have different trajectories based on popularity, grade, number of collectors in the hunt, etc.
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
@Gazes said:
One thought while reading this thread---a common theme is Hansen can do what he wants but his stated goal.....
Most of us have had goals and most of them have changed over time. Even some high profile collectors on this forum have said one thing and then changed their path at some time (almost all of them actually).
I dont know what Hansen's current goal is but he has every right to revise, modify or ratify it without seeking anyone's approval.
Of course he does. And since he publicly stated his goal and hasn’t publicly changed it, we have the right to comment on it as if it’s still in place.
He has also said that he would not ever put himself in a position where he would pay anything to get a particular coin.
In fairness, it isnt like the 1822 $5 sold for an unexpectedly high price. It seemed per TDN's summary to be right in the middle of the expected range. I just wonder if Hansen is more interested in quantity on the registry vs. adding the rarities.
The sale price may have been right on the money. An added bid may not have been though so assuming the coin sold for the correct price anyone bidding over that price is arguable overpaying. More to the point a prudent bidder recognizes the bidding may not stop there. In such a circumstance it can make sense to avoid inflating the price and take a chance on buying it directly from the winning bidder. In this auction we don't know who the winning bidder was but it may well have been "investor/s" who are more interested in turning the coin than keeping it.
How do you know what is a fair price for this coin ? It hasnt sold at auction since 1982.
How did you figure a fair price for the Paquet?
1.) it brought 660k in 1986 / 1987 which seemed to be a similar market as 1982.
2.) it is a high grade coin, which have outperformed the coin market in general since 1987.
3.) it is a big gold coin, which again have outperformed the coin market in general since 1987.
4.) it is a sub-type, which is good too.
If you apply all of this you end up with a multiplier somewhere between 10 - 20 based on the auction result in the 80ies, with the 10 USD 1795 PCGS 66+ being at the high end with 20x.
Some comparables in the same series of sales might be:
5 USD 1823 estimated PCGS 67, sold for 52.800 USD, I think thats a 600k - 800k USD coin today, thats 12 - 15x
5 USD 1821 estimated PCGS PR 65, sold for 198.000 USD, I think thats a 2 - 2.5 Million USD coin today, thats 10 - 12 x
10 USD 1795 PCGS 66+ ex Garret at 130k, thats a 3 Million USD coin today, thats 24x
5 USD 1795 PCGS 65 ex Garret at 60k, thats a 900k USD coin today, thats 15x
4 USD 1880 coiled hair stella at 74.250 PR 66 / 67, thats 2 Million today, 15x
4 USD 1879 coiled hair stella at 88.000 PR 67, thats 2 Million today, 13x
20 USD UHR, PR 68 at 242.000 USD, thats a 15x
20 USD Quintuple Stella, 93.500 USD, today 2-3 Million, thats a 20-30x
Of course there is no exact science to evaluate a coin, but whatever metrics you apply, you always end up somewhere between 10-20x. So 10x would be cheap and 20x would be expensive in my opinion.
I would apply a lower multiplier to the 1822 because its dated gold and an AU coin, so my multiplier there since 1982 is 5 - 10 with 5 cheap and 10 expensive. If you take the middle thats 5 - 5.5 Million USD and thats what I think it should have brought at auction.
But Im also happy it brought more, it means all my coins are also worth more now.
So basically you used the exact same method that I did but added criteria based upon your own bias and desires to raise the value of your coin and lower the value of the 1822. Hmmmm.
No.
I am assuming the growth in value over time is lower for low grade coins compared to high grade coins and all historical data is supporting this.
How do you interpret the results given that the realized price is very different from your model's projection?
@DCW said:
Do we really think just because Coin A sells for X that Coin B is now worth X+?
They are different coins and might well have different trajectories based on popularity, grade, number of collectors in the hunt, etc.
It’s just one data point. Or multiple data points with multiple similar class coins. You do have to be aware of any new information that might skew past price relationships.
The confirmation of 11 more specimens is going to impact the 1933 price somewhat. But it’s definitely going to break the record my 1794 currently holds
@Gazes said:
One thought while reading this thread---a common theme is Hansen can do what he wants but his stated goal.....
Most of us have had goals and most of them have changed over time. Even some high profile collectors on this forum have said one thing and then changed their path at some time (almost all of them actually).
I dont know what Hansen's current goal is but he has every right to revise, modify or ratify it without seeking anyone's approval.
Of course he does. And since he publicly stated his goal and hasn’t publicly changed it, we have the right to comment on it as if it’s still in place.
He has also said that he would not ever put himself in a position where he would pay anything to get a particular coin.
In fairness, it isnt like the 1822 $5 sold for an unexpectedly high price. It seemed per TDN's summary to be right in the middle of the expected range. I just wonder if Hansen is more interested in quantity on the registry vs. adding the rarities.
The sale price may have been right on the money. An added bid may not have been though so assuming the coin sold for the correct price anyone bidding over that price is arguable overpaying. More to the point a prudent bidder recognizes the bidding may not stop there. In such a circumstance it can make sense to avoid inflating the price and take a chance on buying it directly from the winning bidder. In this auction we don't know who the winning bidder was but it may well have been "investor/s" who are more interested in turning the coin than keeping it.
How do you know what is a fair price for this coin ? It hasnt sold at auction since 1982.
How did you figure a fair price for the Paquet?
1.) it brought 660k in 1986 / 1987 which seemed to be a similar market as 1982.
2.) it is a high grade coin, which have outperformed the coin market in general since 1987.
3.) it is a big gold coin, which again have outperformed the coin market in general since 1987.
4.) it is a sub-type, which is good too.
If you apply all of this you end up with a multiplier somewhere between 10 - 20 based on the auction result in the 80ies, with the 10 USD 1795 PCGS 66+ being at the high end with 20x.
Some comparables in the same series of sales might be:
5 USD 1823 estimated PCGS 67, sold for 52.800 USD, I think thats a 600k - 800k USD coin today, thats 12 - 15x
5 USD 1821 estimated PCGS PR 65, sold for 198.000 USD, I think thats a 2 - 2.5 Million USD coin today, thats 10 - 12 x
10 USD 1795 PCGS 66+ ex Garret at 130k, thats a 3 Million USD coin today, thats 24x
5 USD 1795 PCGS 65 ex Garret at 60k, thats a 900k USD coin today, thats 15x
4 USD 1880 coiled hair stella at 74.250 PR 66 / 67, thats 2 Million today, 15x
4 USD 1879 coiled hair stella at 88.000 PR 67, thats 2 Million today, 13x
20 USD UHR, PR 68 at 242.000 USD, thats a 15x
20 USD Quintuple Stella, 93.500 USD, today 2-3 Million, thats a 20-30x
Of course there is no exact science to evaluate a coin, but whatever metrics you apply, you always end up somewhere between 10-20x. So 10x would be cheap and 20x would be expensive in my opinion.
I would apply a lower multiplier to the 1822 because its dated gold and an AU coin, so my multiplier there since 1982 is 5 - 10 with 5 cheap and 10 expensive. If you take the middle thats 5 - 5.5 Million USD and thats what I think it should have brought at auction.
But Im also happy it brought more, it means all my coins are also worth more now.
So basically you used the exact same method that I did but added criteria based upon your own bias and desires to raise the value of your coin and lower the value of the 1822. Hmmmm.
No.
I am assuming the growth in value over time is lower for low grade coins compared to high grade coins and all historical data is supporting this.
How do you interpret the results given that the realized price is very different from your model's projection.
Its a coin that is needed as a date in all the PCGS registry sets, in opposite to the unique 3 USD gold piece, and this might add to the value. And you could well argue how this should be a 10x since 1982, and then we are not far off the price it realized.
If I would have a billion in cash lying around I might just have bought it too at this price.
I think there is just too much cash overall in all markets at the moment, coins, art, stocks, even real estate picking up again .
IF the dealer hadn’t played games and the 1822 had sold for more than $1M like it should have in 1982, it’s stature as the first coin to break $1M would perhaps have enhanced its current value even more.
@DCW said:
Do we really think just because Coin A sells for X that Coin B is now worth X+?
They are different coins and might well have different trajectories based on popularity, grade, number of collectors in the hunt, etc.
It’s just one data point. Or multiple data points with multiple similar class coins. You do have to be aware of any new information that might skew past price relationships.
The confirmation of 11 more specimens is going to impact the 1933 price somewhat. But it’s definitely going to break the record my 1794 currently holds
I think that any impact from the confirmation of the 11 additional examples was offset by the subsequent legal rulings.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
great, but who was the underbidder ? Anybody knows ? A real bid requires the winning bidder AND the underbidder.
Sorry @privaterarecoincollector I didn't receive any information as to who the winner or underbidder were. It was a dealer on the phone representing the winning collector is all that I know.
I was in possession for awhile.
I manage money. I earn money. I save money . I give away money. I collect money. I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
@DCW said:
Do we really think just because Coin A sells for X that Coin B is now worth X+?
They are different coins and might well have different trajectories based on popularity, grade, number of collectors in the hunt, etc.
It’s just one data point. Or multiple data points with multiple similar class coins. You do have to be aware of any new information that might skew past price relationships.
The confirmation of 11 more specimens is going to impact the 1933 price somewhat. But it’s definitely going to break the record my 1794 currently holds
I think that any impact from the confirmation of the 11 additional examples was offset by the subsequent legal rulings.
That is of course is the ten million dollar question.
This will be an interesting auction to watch and a risky one in which to bid high for the stated reason as well as the intangible of the proceeds going to charity.
compared to this resale for the smaller 1 pound that sold as NGC PR 63 heavy hairlined at 1.3 Million USD.
1) The Edward VIII Pattern Sovereign (ex. Hemisphere and R. E. Gibson collections) - Realized a hammer price of £430,000 (approximately $729,000 at the time) in May 2014 (uncertified and described as hairlined over both sides). Brokered by the Royal Mint for £1,000,000 ($1.3 million) in January 2020 (when it was described as having been certified PR63 Cameo).
IMO , ownership of this coin ( $5 1822 ) and the 1933 $20 is necessary to equal or best Eliasberg .
Regardless of how rare/famous those two coins are, based on what he’s already purchased (and likely will in the future), I think it would be an injustice to require that they be added to his collection in order to “equal or best Eliasberg. I think it would be more equatable to look at the entirety of each collection.
The reality is Hansen is already doing more because he's collecting business strikes and proofs and he has many more moderns to contend with.
However, another reality is the top coins are what people talk about, like:
Eliasberg 1822 Half Eagle
Eliasberg 1913 Barber Nickel
Eliasberg 1933 DE
When people discuss and rank the Hansen Collection, it isn't going to be the Roosevelt Dimes or state quarters that numismatists care about. It's going to be the ultra rarities. It is his collection, and he can do whatever he wants. That said his repeated actions (buying the lowest grade class I 1804 dollar, passing on the Eliasberg 1913 Liberty Head Nickel, selling his ownership in the XF40 1854-S $5 before it was known that the Pogue 58+ would be coming up the next year, all while paying 6 figures for common date Mercury Dimes in top pop holders, etc. ) seem to suggest that his goal is to maximize the number of #1 PCGS registry sets and not necessarily match or beat Eliasberg. That too is a laudable goal but a marked shift from his originally announced goal.
@cameonut2011 said:
seem to suggest that his goal is to maximize the number of #1 PCGS registry sets and not necessarily match or beat Eliasberg. That too is a laudable goal but a marked shift from his originally announced goal.
@cameonut2011 said:
seem to suggest that his goal is to maximize the number of #1 PCGS registry sets and not necessarily match or beat Eliasberg. That too is a laudable goal but a marked shift from his originally announced goal.
Has he surpassed Eliasberg in the Registry Set?
Does Pcgs have all of Eliasberg’s coins entered in the Registry Set?
@cameonut2011 said:
seem to suggest that his goal is to maximize the number of #1 PCGS registry sets and not necessarily match or beat Eliasberg. That too is a laudable goal but a marked shift from his originally announced goal.
Has he surpassed Eliasberg in the Registry Set?
Does Pcgs have all of Eliasberg’s coins entered in the Registry Set?
Are all the Eliasberg coins identified or identifiable?
@cameonut2011 said:
seem to suggest that his goal is to maximize the number of #1 PCGS registry sets and not necessarily match or beat Eliasberg. That too is a laudable goal but a marked shift from his originally announced goal.
Has he surpassed Eliasberg in the Registry Set?
Does Pcgs have all of Eliasberg’s coins entered in the Registry Set?
Are all the Eliasberg coins identified or identifiable?
The last time I looked Pcgs hadn’t entered approximately 20 or so Eliasberg coins - he had open slots in the Registry where he obviously had the coin.
@cameonut2011 said:
seem to suggest that his goal is to maximize the number of #1 PCGS registry sets and not necessarily match or beat Eliasberg. That too is a laudable goal but a marked shift from his originally announced goal.
Has he surpassed Eliasberg in the Registry Set?
Does Pcgs have all of Eliasberg’s coins entered in the Registry Set?
Are all the Eliasberg coins identified or identifiable?
The last time I looked Pcgs hadn’t entered approximately 20 or so Eliasberg coins - he had open slots in the Registry where he obviously had the coin.
@cameonut2011 said:
seem to suggest that his goal is to maximize the number of #1 PCGS registry sets and not necessarily match or beat Eliasberg. That too is a laudable goal but a marked shift from his originally announced goal.
Has he surpassed Eliasberg in the Registry Set?
Does Pcgs have all of Eliasberg’s coins entered in the Registry Set?
Are all the Eliasberg coins identified or identifiable?
The last time I looked Pcgs hadn’t entered approximately 20 or so Eliasberg coins - he had open slots in the Registry where he obviously had the coin.
Some of these coins may be situations where Eliasberg had a proof version in the sale(s), and the PCGS Registry Set composition requires a business strike version.
However, I checked the sales, and they list business strike versions for almost all of them.
http://ha.com/1122*847
However, he also apparently had the above V-2 MS-64 (Heritage 2009-2)
So it seems the person recreating his registry set missed this one.
In the Bowers and Merena May 1996 "Eliasberg I" sale, 3 1849 half dimes are shown:
973 4342 H10C 1849/6 MS67 $3,080 NONE V-4; Richard B. Winsor Collection; S.H. and H. Chapman; J.M. Clapp; Louis E. Eli
974 4342 H10C 1849/6 AU58 $715 NONE V-2
975 4425 H10C 1849 PR66 $22,000 NONE Ex: C. S. Wilcox Collection; Chapman Brothers; J.M. Clapp; Louis E. Eliasberg, S
You can also see that for many dates in this sale, he only had proof examples (1861-62, 1865-73 Philadelphia)
5/96 Sale (Colonial - 10c): https://www.pcgs.com/auctionprices/auctionsaledetails/bowers-merena/louis-e-eliasberg-sr/firmid/10003/saleid/-734980369859754351
Note: it is not an easy task to recreate Eliasberg's set for the registry, including accurate grades!
However, it is likely much easier see if the 12 coins below can be traced to current grades or estimated grades.
To see the list of missing coins, click on the Grade column to sort, and the "missing" ones show up at the top:
1849 H10C [5/96 sale shows MS-67, AU-58, PR-66]
1841 10C [5/96 sale shows MS-66]
1870 10C [5/96 sale shows MS-63]
1825/4/2 25C [4/97 sale shows MS-64, MS-65]
1878 7/8TF $1 [4/97 sale shows 8TF PR-67, 7TF PR-66; 7/8TF is a variety, not a date-mm combination]
1796/5 $5 [10/82 sale shows AU-58]
1818 $5 [AU-50, AU-58, MS-65]
1825 $5 [1825/4/1 AU-50, 1825/4 PR-63]
1828 $5 [MS-61]
1829 $5 Large Size [MS-66]
1831 $5 [AU-58, MS-67]
1839 $10 Type of 1840 [1839/8 PR-64] https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/complete-sets/master-sets/u-s-coins-complete-basic-set-circulation-strikes-1792-1964/alltimeset/83451
Short summary: The PCGS Registry Set for Complete Set Business Strikes 1792-1964 does not exactly coincide with the date-mint mark combination set that Eliasberg had.
And his listing should include the above business strike versions to be more accurate.
The set definition is also missing several proof-only dates, such as the 1913 Liberty Nickel and the 1894-S dime (though
many call it a non-proof these days).
IMO , ownership of this coin ( $5 1822 ) and the 1933 $20 is necessary to equal or best Eliasberg .
Regardless of how rare/famous those two coins are, based on what he’s already purchased (and likely will in the future), I think it would be an injustice to require that they be added to his collection in order to “equal or best Eliasberg. I think it would be more equatable to look at the entirety of each collection.
The reality is Hansen is already doing more because he's collecting business strikes and proofs and he has many more moderns to contend with.
However, another reality is the top coins are what people talk about, like:
Eliasberg 1822 Half Eagle
Eliasberg 1913 Barber Nickel
Eliasberg 1933 DE
That is one view but there are other views. Some may focus on a few ultra rarities but others may focus on the breadth of the collection. For instance, I am more intrested in Hansen's proof gold collection than whether he owns the top pop of a certain ultra rarity. Viewing individual sets he has put together I find fascinating whether it be liberty quarter eagles or walking lib halves. Just dont think it's an automatic that people immediately judge a collection by a subset of a few coins and if he owns them what condition they are in.
For me personally a collection is all about the impossible coins to own. The possible ones is a simple function of time and money, the impossible ones are impossible !
@privaterarecoincollector said:
For me personally a collection is all about the impossible coins to own. The possible ones is a simple function of time and money, the impossible ones are impossible !
I would add that it's not only about the most difficult but getting those that are the best within the type/date.
@privaterarecoincollector said:
For me personally a collection is all about the impossible coins to own. The possible ones is a simple function of time and money, the impossible ones are impossible !
I was surprised to read this from what I've seen of your posts, I would have imagined that your collection isn't about impossible to own coins, but ones that are a harder function of time and money.
In the following three categories, which are you thinking of?
Category 1: To me, impossible to own coins are like the following. These aren't actually fully impossible to own as someone could pull a Thomas Crowne Affair, which has happened in some European coin museums, but this is what I think of when I hear "impossible to own".
1804 Class II Dollar
1849 Double Eagle
1877 Half Union Large Head
1877 Half Union Small Head
2000-W Gold Sacagawea Dollar
Category 2: Possible to own clandestinely, which seems to include the following which we hear stories of:
1933 non-Weitzman Double Eagle
1964 Peace Dollar
1974-D Aluminum Cent
Category 3: Coins that are possible to own with enough time and money. These coins are, of course, privately owned now, and will presumably have different private owners later.
@privaterarecoincollector said:
For me personally a collection is all about the impossible coins to own. The possible ones is a simple function of time and money, the impossible ones are impossible !
I was surprised to read this from what I've seen of your posts, I would have imagined that your collection isn't about impossible to own coins, but ones that are a harder function of time and money.
In the following three categories, which are you thinking of?
Category 1: To me, impossible to own coins are like the following. These aren't actually fully impossible to own as someone could pull a Thomas Crowne Affair, which has happened in some European coin museums, but this is what I think of when I hear "impossible to own".
1804 Class II Dollar
1849 Double Eagle
1877 Half Union Large Head
1877 Half Union Small Head
2000-W Gold Sacagawea Dollar
Category 2: Possible to own clandestinely, which seems to include the following which we hear stories of:
1933 non-Weitzman Double Eagle
1964 Peace Dollar
1974-D Aluminum Cent
Category 3: Coins that are possible to own with enough time and money. These coins are, of course, privately owned now, and will presumably have different private owners later.
I would rather have bought the 1822 5 for 10 Million than all the mercury dimes, if my plan would be to be the next Eliasberg, or anybody else meaningful in numismatics.
“When people discuss and rank the Hansen Collection, it isn't going to be the Roosevelt Dimes or state quarters that numismatists care about.”
Not totally true. I, for one, will care very much about his Roosevelt Dimes and state quarters. Anyone with a few million dollars can possibly own the finest known 1894-S Dime - I easily bought it for my customer in 15 minutes sitting at a diner one day. Try buying (or building piece by piece) the greatest Roosevelt Dime collection. Even a billionaire like Mr. Hansen isn’t there yet after years and years of spending his money.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
@wondercoin said:
“When people discuss and rank the Hansen Collection, it isn't going to be the Roosevelt Dimes or state quarters that numismatists care about.”
Not totally true. I, for one, will care very much about his Roosevelt Dimes and state quarters. Anyone with a few million dollars can possibly own the finest known 1894-S Dime - I easily bought it for my customer in 15 minutes sitting at a diner one day. Try buying (or building piece by piece) the greatest Roosevelt Dime collection. Even a billionaire like Mr. Hansen isn’t there yet after years and years of spending his money.
Wondercoin
This is an interesting perspective and one i had never thought about. These sets of condition rarity are interesting. Are they purely a phenomenon of the registry game which doesn't matter as much for the truly rare coins. It certainly feels that way which leads to each his own. Though, if we go back to the stated goal of being the next Elisaberg, these conditionally rare sets were not that important. It was more about true rarity and completeness.
@privaterarecoincollector said:
For me personally a collection is all about the impossible coins to own. The possible ones is a simple function of time and money, the impossible ones are impossible !
I was surprised to read this from what I've seen of your posts, I would have imagined that your collection isn't about impossible to own coins, but ones that are a harder function of time and money.
In the following three categories, which are you thinking of?
Category 1: To me, impossible to own coins are like the following. These aren't actually fully impossible to own as someone could pull a Thomas Crowne Affair, which has happened in some European coin museums, but this is what I think of when I hear "impossible to own".
1804 Class II Dollar
1849 Double Eagle
1877 Half Union Large Head
1877 Half Union Small Head
2000-W Gold Sacagawea Dollar
Category 2: Possible to own clandestinely, which seems to include the following which we hear stories of:
1933 non-Weitzman Double Eagle
1964 Peace Dollar
1974-D Aluminum Cent
Category 3: Coins that are possible to own with enough time and money. These coins are, of course, privately owned now, and will presumably have different private owners later.
1787 Garrett Brasher
1804 Sultan of Muscat Eagle
J-1776
1976 No-S Dollar
To me all 3 categories are impossible coins.
Thanks for the clarification. To me, the last category is definitely possible to own as evidenced by some recent sales and provenance chains of previous owners. As an example, I have some unique items and, while not at the same price level as these, I wouldn't call them impossible to own as I own them, as did others before me.
@tradedollarnut said:
I can tell you from personal experience, when a huge set is on display people go ‘wow, great coins...where’s the xxx?’
My guess is that this is asked in context of what people know about the collection.
For example, there's only 1 available 1787 EB on Breast Brasher, 1822 HE, 1873-CC NA dime, 1933 DE, etc. so if you ask the question, you may be getting a lot of negative answers.
Let's try it with some collections of note:
Harry Wesley Bass Jr.: no, no, no, no
Virgil Michael Brand: no, yes, no, no
Louis Edward Eliasberg, Sr.: no, yes, yes, yes
Thomas Harrison and John Work Garrett: yes, no, no, no
Colonel Edward Howland Robinson "Ned" Green: no, no, no, no
Josiah Kirby "Joe" Lilly Jr.: no, yes, no, no
Eric Pfeiffer Newman: no, no, no, no, no
Raymond Henry and Emery May Holden Norweb: no, no, no, no
Lorin Gilbert Parmelee: yes, no, no, no
John Jay Pittman: no, no, no, no
David Brent Pogue: no, yes, no, no
James A. Stack Sr.: no, no, no, yes
Matthew Adams Stickney: no, no, no, no
Marvin Taichert: no, no, no, no
The above shows just how great Eliasberg's accomplishment was. It's also why I value absolute rarity.
For something like Hansen's collection I would definitely ask about the Mercury Dimes, Franklin Halves, and SLQs because I love these coins and have a feeling they are going to be mind blowing. I would ask the same thing for The Type Set, Tyrant and Pogue because I think a type set should have these but I would expect to only see one, and not an entire set. I wouldn't ask to see these in say a TDN or Black Cat display. I would ask for these in a Simpson display because while I don't know what the response would be, he did have an amazing Buffalo nickel.
Zions, Great work. I know researching the list was not able to be done quickly. I have always considered there are three true Unique Private (only 1) for US issues. They three are 1873-CC NA dime, 1870-S Half Dime and the 1870-S Three Dollar. When including the Private Owned Unique (including proof only), there are three additional with results that total of six. They are 1922 HE, 1933 DE, and the 1866 "No Motto" Dollar. I know of no other unique private US issue coins that would make this list without adding additional qualifiers that would expand and complicate the list . If anyone know of a seventh, then let me know. I think your list would look a little different (but not much) if you look at these six. Eliasberg had four of the six. No one else even close. Great posting.
It is a convenient argument to say that Mr. Hansen spent too much on certain Mercury dimes and was not willing to spend more than 8.4 million on the 1822. I doubt one has much to do with the other. I doubt he told John Brush that he would be willing to go to 10 million if it weren't for the money he spent on those Mercury dimes.
It would be disappointing if he was not interested in purchasing the 1822. That seems a mistake but he may simply have calculated its value below $8.4 million.
Hansen does own the Eliasberg 1854-S half eagle, which is head and shoulders above the other available example (and the missing DuPont coin, apparently). More recent sales of the Brasher doubloon, the 1822 and the UHR Saint make the Eliasberg 54-S purchase at the beginning of COVID (March 2020) look very savvy.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
... More to the point a prudent bidder recognizes the bidding may not stop there. In such a circumstance it can make sense to avoid inflating the price and take a chance on buying it directly from the winning bidder. In this auction we don't know who the winning bidder was ...
.
.
Eliasberg faced a similar situation where a uniqely available coin came up for auction and everyone knew he needed it the most for his set. That was the the Unique 1873-CC No Arrows Dime in 1950, about the last rarity he needed.
The difference then was that Eliasberg could see and knew who was bidding against him and soon realized the dealer was running him up knowing he could sell it to him later. So he finally stopped bidding.
It may not have been a bad strategy for Hansen to drop out of the bidding rather than keep running it up.
Assuming he did not know who the competition was, he could hope a dealer buys it and plans to eventually sell it to him anyway. If another collector buys it, he can hope that it will return to the market in within the next 5 to 10 years. The biggest risk for his collection is that the buyer will have it off the market for decades and then he would likely be unable to acquire one.
There is also the outside possibility that the Smithsonian could eventually let go of a duplicate (they have two). Never know what could happen with the government. I bet the public and most coin collectors would approve of them getting rid of at least the duplications. It could fund the government for a few minutes or seconds.
.
.
.
.
===
Here is the story from within the lot description about Eliaberg's failed bidding and eventual purchasing of The Unique 1873-CC No Arrows Dime auctioned by Stack's Bowers in August 2012.
Numismatic Gallery scheduled an auction of the collection formed by Charles M. Williams for June 1950. (Williams's 1804 silver dollar and 1822 half eagle were sold private treaty.) The seller-consignor requested anonymity, so Numismatic Gallery used the name of dapper American actor Adolphe Menjou to brand the auction. The actor's image added a romantic flare to the pre-sale interest, but the coins created the greatest buzz.
Cataloger Abe Kosoff listed the many first-class rarities as showstoppers in the auction, including an 1876-CC twenty-cent piece, and an 1894-S Barber dime. The wild card in the sale was the 1873-CC No Arrows dime -- Kosoff struggled to give it proper classification; he grappled with establishing a pre-sale price estimate for it.
For all of the other prestigious coins in the auction, he had relatively recent prices realized. For the 1894-S Barber dime, for instance, Kosoff noted that the World's Greatest Collection specimen in 1945 had brought $2,350. Accordingly, he set his pre-sale estimate in the 1950 Menjou auction at $2,500. He followed this same line of reasoning for all the other attention-getters in the sale.
But how could he use this strategy for the No Arrows dime? The last public price realized for it, $170, was recorded 35 years earlier. Kosoff knew its value had appreciated significantly since then. Writing 20 years after the Menjou auction, Kosoff recalled that before he published the catalog for it, he had set the pre-sale estimate at $2,000. Phone calls from irate clients, however, caused him to cut that number in half by the time his company mailed the catalogs. Still, the $1,000 estimate brought complaints from collectors, who reminded Kosoff that the current price guide listed the 1873-CC No Arrows dime's value at $350, which Kosoff considered totally unreasonable, especially if his inference about the coin's unique status was legitimate.
Kosoff knew of one man in the country who wanted that dime more than any other person did. Louis E. Eliasberg, Sr., who by then had surpassed just about all other numismatists in history in terms of the completeness of his collection, needed the No Arrows dime, and another coin in the Menjou sale, the 1853-O Without Arrows and Rays half dollar, to achieve something no one else had ever achieved.
Eighty-eight lots before the 1873-CC No Arrows dime's turn, Numismatic Gallery offered an 1894-S Barber dime. Interestingly, Kosoff stated that it was the "rarest dime at any of the mints." It's not clear if he meant to say it had the lowest mintage figure of any dime minted in the U.S. or if he meant it was the rarest dime by survival count. It would have been difficult for Kosoff to support the latter claim, even though he had estimated that "about 7 are known to exist." Because 88 lots later he raved about the rarity of the 1873-CC No Arrows dime. He didn't call it unique, as Raymond had done in 1915, but he came close. He did not just limit its rarity to the context of the dime series; he declared it was among the rarest of all U.S. coins. He placed it in company with the 1804 Draped Bust silver dollar and the 1913 Liberty Head nickel. "In fact," he reminded everyone, "these [last two coins mentioned] have been offered several times in the past few years." But when, he asked, was the last 1873-CC No Arrows dime offered? Then he started naming famous collections that did not have the rare dime from Carson City: Boyd, Neil, Stickney, Higgy. He said, "You'll have to search far and wide to find another." He declared that the next owner of the dime would "own a coin the equal of which will probably never appear." Kosoff's prose in this coin's description epitomizes the emotions of a man in the presence of greatness.
A packed house gathered at the auction gallery down the street from Kosoff and Kreisberg's Wilshire Blvd. office in Beverly Hills, at 8:00 p.m. sharp on Thursday June 15, 1950, to witness what promised to be a memorable night. The highest price realized, leading up to the 1873-CC No Arrows dime, was $1,850, for the 1894-S Barber dime, which was a little disappointing since it had fallen 26 percent short of Kosoff's $2,500 pre-sale estimate.
Kosoff then called Lot 399, the 1873-CC No Arrows dime. As he remembered it 20 years later, Kosoff said the "bidding opened at about $1,100 and went rapidly to $2,000 [when Eliasberg jumped in], to $2,500, $3,000, $3,500; Eliasberg bid $3,500 [James] Kelly $3,600, Eliasberg to $3,625; Kelly went to $3,650," and "then silence -- Eliasberg was dropping out."
Writing 25 years later, Eliasberg described his experience at the Menjou auction:
"When the Adolphe Menjou catalogue came out in 1950, I flew to California to buy the 1853-O Half Dollar/no arrows, no rays, and an 1873-CC Dime/no arrows. I attempted to purchase the Dime [before the auction] at twice the value they estimated it to be worth, and thereby avoid a trip to California, but they declined. I made the trip and I bid many times what I thought the Dime was worth, but failed to buy it. In fact, I was so provoked ... I did not attend the second session [the following night] to bid for the [1853-O] Half Dollar."
Joseph Stack, a partner in Stack's of New York, with whom Eliasberg had conducted many transactions, stayed for the second session that Friday evening and bought the 1853-O Without Arrows and Rays half dollar, for $890, for his client, who had caught the next flight back to Baltimore. With the purchase of the 1853-O half dollar, Eliasberg still lacked the one coin needed to complete his immortal collection.
Five months passed and, in November 1950, Sol Kaplan wrote to Eliasberg and asked him what he would pay for the dime. Eliasberg, who was brooding over his unpleasant auction experience and also grieving over the loss of his wife to cancer in December 1949, responded gallantly that he would pay $4,000. Kaplan shipped the coin and Eliasberg sent a check. What should have happened in June came to pass on November 7, 1950. Eliasberg had achieved the goal he had set for himself many years earlier.
The dime remained in the Eliasberg family's possession for 46 years, under the patriarch's supervision until his death in February 1976, and then another 20 years in the custody of his younger son, Richard A. Eliasberg.
===
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
@privaterarecoincollector said:
What can I say, when the Brasher sold I thought that price was crazy, now I would probably buy it at 10 Million if it were for sale.
It just seems everything is more expensive now, especially the ultra high end gold.
@privaterarecoincollector said:
What can I say, when the Brasher sold I thought that price was crazy, now I would probably buy it at 10 Million if it were for sale.
It just seems everything is more expensive now, especially the ultra high end gold.
@privaterarecoincollector said:
What can I say, when the Brasher sold I thought that price was crazy, now I would probably buy it at 10 Million if it were for sale.
It just seems everything is more expensive now, especially the ultra high end gold.
we are here for you about the dubloon bro
I love this comment!!!
So do I. I don't know why, but it makes me happy!
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
@privaterarecoincollector said:
What can I say, when the Brasher sold I thought that price was crazy, now I would probably buy it at 10 Million if it were for sale.
It just seems everything is more expensive now, especially the ultra high end gold.
@Currin said:
Zions, Great work. I know researching the list was not able to be done quickly. I have always considered there are three true Unique Private (only 1) for US issues. They three are 1873-CC NA dime, 1870-S Half Dime and the 1870-S Three Dollar. When including the Private Owned Unique (including proof only), there are three additional with results that total of six. They are 1922 HE, 1933 DE, and the 1866 "No Motto" Dollar. I know of no other unique private US issue coins that would make this list without adding additional qualifiers that would expand and complicate the list . If anyone know of a seventh, then let me know. I think your list would look a little different (but not much) if you look at these six. Eliasberg had four of the six. No one else even close. Great posting.
Thanks! Great info. I've added these coins to create a new thread.
@RedCopper said:
What about the unique 1943 D copper Lincoln cent ?
Is this considered an error coin?
The following is from PCGS:
The only known 1943-dated Lincoln cent mistakenly struck at the Denver Mint on a bronze planchet has been sold for a record $1.7 million by Legend Numismatics of Lincroft, New Jersey. The unique coin, not publicly known to exist until 1979, is certified PCGS MS64BN.
In the following page, you indicate that in addition to the 1976 No-S Proof Ike, there are possibly 1 or 2 more 20th century unique, non-error coins. Can you identify those?
Also, what is your thought on the 1943-D Bronze Cent being an error coin as mentioned by PCGS?
the unique 1976 No S Ike Dollar is the most special coin in my coin collection and, I believe, the rarest and most special "modern" U.S. coin in existence.
In fact, I believe it is one of only two or possibly three coins from all of the 20th century that are unique, non-error strikings of the U.S. Mint
I haven't included it on my list of top collectors mapping yet, because the coin is so new only a few would have had an opportunity to own it by being alive after the coin was minted, but I want to think of a way to include it.
Zoins. I’m on the road right now, so I don’t have all my notes and backup with me. But, two other Unique 20th Century super rarities that come to mind are the 1907 Peso struck in 90% silver (impounded in a Manila museum) and the 1907 Peso struck in 80% silver (in private hands). I believe my son Justin, myself and Justhavingfun (RIP) wrote about these two unique coins in the series of articles we published on pcgs.com in 2018.
The 1976 Proof Eisenhower Dollar is the only Ty 2 Silver dollar known to exist for the bicentennial of our country. The other near 5,000,000 specimens struck in silver for the bicentennial are Ty 1 silver dollar proofs. So, after nearly (50) years, the known mintages of Ty 1 vs Ty 2 1976 silver dollar proofs currently stands at roughly 5,000,000 to 1. The Ty 2 “presentation piece” was struck in Philadelphia so, of course, it has No S mintmark. But, this coin is often more commonly referred to as the 1976 No S Proof Dollar.
There usually isn’t a week that goes by without me being contacted by one or more collectors and folks simply in the general public who believe they have found the second 1976 Ty 2 proof silver dollar. Usually, they come across a No S 1976 Ty 2 coin when they inherit their parents or grandparents coin collections. But, it is not uncommon for waitresses, pastors and others to contact me who received a coin as a tip or a donation.
I try to take almost all the calls and explain to folks that they likely have one of the millions of Ty 2 mint state examples that exist without the S mintmark. I try to educate them on mint state vs. proof and for those that insist that they have the “real thing”, I suggest that they first purchase a 1976 proof set from their local coin shop to see what a proof Ike dollar looks like with the S mintmark for comparison. If necessary, I also direct them how to contact PCGS to submit their coin for authentication and they assure me when they receive the good news from PCGS that they have the real thing, that I will be hearing back from them. I have obviously never heard back from anyone as of yet.
There are a few interesting YouTube presentations on the No S Ike dollar that I see on the Internet as well.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
The 1943 D copper cent was not mistakenly struck. It was clandestinely minted and was found in a mint employees estate
and consigned to a Stacks auction.
Isn’t the 1958 DDO a rare coin ? Last time I looked it was in a PCGS Set Registry
I don’t think the 1976 no s Eisenhower Dollar is included in any Set Registry
I don’t think the 1976 no s Eisenhower Dollar is included in any Set Registry
It’s only in (2) significant registry sets at the moment - The Top 100 Moderns (where it has been since the registry set opened about a decade ago and the set has not been updated ever since it began) & the Complete Ike Dollar set, Mint State & Proof with major Varieties. It may be added to more sets at any time if, and when, the request is ever made.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
Comments
Do we really think just because Coin A sells for X that Coin B is now worth X+?
They are different coins and might well have different trajectories based on popularity, grade, number of collectors in the hunt, etc.
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
How do you interpret the results given that the realized price is very different from your model's projection?
It’s just one data point. Or multiple data points with multiple similar class coins. You do have to be aware of any new information that might skew past price relationships.
The confirmation of 11 more specimens is going to impact the 1933 price somewhat. But it’s definitely going to break the record my 1794 currently holds
Its a coin that is needed as a date in all the PCGS registry sets, in opposite to the unique 3 USD gold piece, and this might add to the value. And you could well argue how this should be a 10x since 1982, and then we are not far off the price it realized.
If I would have a billion in cash lying around I might just have bought it too at this price.
I think there is just too much cash overall in all markets at the moment, coins, art, stocks, even real estate picking up again .
And then its unique, so there will never be competition on the sale side.
IF the dealer hadn’t played games and the 1822 had sold for more than $1M like it should have in 1982, it’s stature as the first coin to break $1M would perhaps have enhanced its current value even more.
What can I say, when the Brasher sold I thought that price was crazy, now I would probably buy it at 10 Million if it were for sale.
It just seems everything is more expensive now, especially the ultra high end gold.
Top end coin prices adjust with the financial prospects of the underbidder. Quite a few people are doing great. Some even invested in Airbnb
I think that any impact from the confirmation of the 11 additional examples was offset by the subsequent legal rulings.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I was in possession for awhile.
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
That is of course is the ten million dollar question.
This will be an interesting auction to watch and a risky one in which to bid high for the stated reason as well as the intangible of the proceeds going to charity.
Congrats! Great piece, but you already knew that.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
When people discuss and rank the Hansen Collection, it isn't going to be the Roosevelt Dimes or state quarters that numismatists care about. It's going to be the ultra rarities. It is his collection, and he can do whatever he wants. That said his repeated actions (buying the lowest grade class I 1804 dollar, passing on the Eliasberg 1913 Liberty Head Nickel, selling his ownership in the XF40 1854-S $5 before it was known that the Pogue 58+ would be coming up the next year, all while paying 6 figures for common date Mercury Dimes in top pop holders, etc. ) seem to suggest that his goal is to maximize the number of #1 PCGS registry sets and not necessarily match or beat Eliasberg. That too is a laudable goal but a marked shift from his originally announced goal.
Has he surpassed Eliasberg in the Registry Set?
Does Pcgs have all of Eliasberg’s coins entered in the Registry Set?
Are all the Eliasberg coins identified or identifiable?
The last time I looked Pcgs hadn’t entered approximately 20 or so Eliasberg coins - he had open slots in the Registry where he obviously had the coin.
Has anyone asked PCGS to add these?
Some of these coins may be situations where Eliasberg had a proof version in the sale(s), and the PCGS Registry Set composition requires a business strike version.
However, I checked the sales, and they list business strike versions for almost all of them.
Example: 1849 half dime.
http://ha.com/1104*2388
Eliasberg had the above V-8 PR-66 cam.
http://ha.com/1122*847
However, he also apparently had the above V-2 MS-64 (Heritage 2009-2)
So it seems the person recreating his registry set missed this one.
In the Bowers and Merena May 1996 "Eliasberg I" sale, 3 1849 half dimes are shown:
973 4342 H10C 1849/6 MS67 $3,080 NONE V-4; Richard B. Winsor Collection; S.H. and H. Chapman; J.M. Clapp; Louis E. Eli
974 4342 H10C 1849/6 AU58 $715 NONE V-2
975 4425 H10C 1849 PR66 $22,000 NONE Ex: C. S. Wilcox Collection; Chapman Brothers; J.M. Clapp; Louis E. Eliasberg, S
You can also see that for many dates in this sale, he only had proof examples (1861-62, 1865-73 Philadelphia)
5/96 Sale (Colonial - 10c): https://www.pcgs.com/auctionprices/auctionsaledetails/bowers-merena/louis-e-eliasberg-sr/firmid/10003/saleid/-734980369859754351
4/97 Sale (20c - S$1): https://www.pcgs.com/auctionprices/auctionsaledetails/bowers-merena/louis-e-eliasberg-sr-ii/firmid/10003/saleid/1166864132914805589
10/82 Sale (Gold): https://www.pcgs.com/auctionprices/auctionsaledetails/bowers-ruddy/eliasberg-gold-collection/firmid/10034/saleid/7312926820151555580
Note: it is not an easy task to recreate Eliasberg's set for the registry, including accurate grades!
However, it is likely much easier see if the 12 coins below can be traced to current grades or estimated grades.
To see the list of missing coins, click on the Grade column to sort, and the "missing" ones show up at the top:
1849 H10C [5/96 sale shows MS-67, AU-58, PR-66]
1841 10C [5/96 sale shows MS-66]
1870 10C [5/96 sale shows MS-63]
1825/4/2 25C [4/97 sale shows MS-64, MS-65]
1878 7/8TF $1 [4/97 sale shows 8TF PR-67, 7TF PR-66; 7/8TF is a variety, not a date-mm combination]
1796/5 $5 [10/82 sale shows AU-58]
1818 $5 [AU-50, AU-58, MS-65]
1825 $5 [1825/4/1 AU-50, 1825/4 PR-63]
1828 $5 [MS-61]
1829 $5 Large Size [MS-66]
1831 $5 [AU-58, MS-67]
1839 $10 Type of 1840 [1839/8 PR-64]
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/complete-sets/master-sets/u-s-coins-complete-basic-set-circulation-strikes-1792-1964/alltimeset/83451
Short summary: The PCGS Registry Set for Complete Set Business Strikes 1792-1964 does not exactly coincide with the date-mint mark combination set that Eliasberg had.
And his listing should include the above business strike versions to be more accurate.
The set definition is also missing several proof-only dates, such as the 1913 Liberty Nickel and the 1894-S dime (though
many call it a non-proof these days).
That is one view but there are other views. Some may focus on a few ultra rarities but others may focus on the breadth of the collection. For instance, I am more intrested in Hansen's proof gold collection than whether he owns the top pop of a certain ultra rarity. Viewing individual sets he has put together I find fascinating whether it be liberty quarter eagles or walking lib halves. Just dont think it's an automatic that people immediately judge a collection by a subset of a few coins and if he owns them what condition they are in.
I can tell you from personal experience, when a huge set is on display people go ‘wow, great coins...where’s the xxx?’
For me personally a collection is all about the impossible coins to own. The possible ones is a simple function of time and money, the impossible ones are impossible !
I would add that it's not only about the most difficult but getting those that are the best within the type/date.
I was surprised to read this from what I've seen of your posts, I would have imagined that your collection isn't about impossible to own coins, but ones that are a harder function of time and money.
In the following three categories, which are you thinking of?
Category 1: To me, impossible to own coins are like the following. These aren't actually fully impossible to own as someone could pull a Thomas Crowne Affair, which has happened in some European coin museums, but this is what I think of when I hear "impossible to own".
Category 2: Possible to own clandestinely, which seems to include the following which we hear stories of:
Category 3: Coins that are possible to own with enough time and money. These coins are, of course, privately owned now, and will presumably have different private owners later.
To me all 3 categories are impossible coins.
I would rather have bought the 1822 5 for 10 Million than all the mercury dimes, if my plan would be to be the next Eliasberg, or anybody else meaningful in numismatics.
“When people discuss and rank the Hansen Collection, it isn't going to be the Roosevelt Dimes or state quarters that numismatists care about.”
Not totally true. I, for one, will care very much about his Roosevelt Dimes and state quarters. Anyone with a few million dollars can possibly own the finest known 1894-S Dime - I easily bought it for my customer in 15 minutes sitting at a diner one day. Try buying (or building piece by piece) the greatest Roosevelt Dime collection. Even a billionaire like Mr. Hansen isn’t there yet after years and years of spending his money.
Wondercoin
This is an interesting perspective and one i had never thought about. These sets of condition rarity are interesting. Are they purely a phenomenon of the registry game which doesn't matter as much for the truly rare coins. It certainly feels that way which leads to each his own. Though, if we go back to the stated goal of being the next Elisaberg, these conditionally rare sets were not that important. It was more about true rarity and completeness.
Thanks for the clarification. To me, the last category is definitely possible to own as evidenced by some recent sales and provenance chains of previous owners. As an example, I have some unique items and, while not at the same price level as these, I wouldn't call them impossible to own as I own them, as did others before me.
My guess is that this is asked in context of what people know about the collection.
For example, there's only 1 available 1787 EB on Breast Brasher, 1822 HE, 1873-CC NA dime, 1933 DE, etc. so if you ask the question, you may be getting a lot of negative answers.
Let's try it with some collections of note:
The above shows just how great Eliasberg's accomplishment was. It's also why I value absolute rarity.
For something like Hansen's collection I would definitely ask about the Mercury Dimes, Franklin Halves, and SLQs because I love these coins and have a feeling they are going to be mind blowing. I would ask the same thing for The Type Set, Tyrant and Pogue because I think a type set should have these but I would expect to only see one, and not an entire set. I wouldn't ask to see these in say a TDN or Black Cat display. I would ask for these in a Simpson display because while I don't know what the response would be, he did have an amazing Buffalo nickel.
Zions, Great work. I know researching the list was not able to be done quickly. I have always considered there are three true Unique Private (only 1) for US issues. They three are 1873-CC NA dime, 1870-S Half Dime and the 1870-S Three Dollar. When including the Private Owned Unique (including proof only), there are three additional with results that total of six. They are 1922 HE, 1933 DE, and the 1866 "No Motto" Dollar. I know of no other unique private US issue coins that would make this list without adding additional qualifiers that would expand and complicate the list . If anyone know of a seventh, then let me know. I think your list would look a little different (but not much) if you look at these six. Eliasberg had four of the six. No one else even close. Great posting.
My 20th Century Gold Major Design Type Set ---started : 11/17/1997 ---- completed : 1/21/2004
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
One minor edit to the interesting list assembled above.
Josiah Kirby "Joe" Lilly Jr.: no, no, no, no.
Should be Josiah Kirby "Joe" Lilly Jr.: no, yes, no, no, since the Lilly collection did have an 1822 $5 which is now in the Smithsonian.
.
.
Eliasberg faced a similar situation where a uniqely available coin came up for auction and everyone knew he needed it the most for his set. That was the the Unique 1873-CC No Arrows Dime in 1950, about the last rarity he needed.
The difference then was that Eliasberg could see and knew who was bidding against him and soon realized the dealer was running him up knowing he could sell it to him later. So he finally stopped bidding.
It may not have been a bad strategy for Hansen to drop out of the bidding rather than keep running it up.
Assuming he did not know who the competition was, he could hope a dealer buys it and plans to eventually sell it to him anyway. If another collector buys it, he can hope that it will return to the market in within the next 5 to 10 years. The biggest risk for his collection is that the buyer will have it off the market for decades and then he would likely be unable to acquire one.
There is also the outside possibility that the Smithsonian could eventually let go of a duplicate (they have two). Never know what could happen with the government. I bet the public and most coin collectors would approve of them getting rid of at least the duplications. It could fund the government for a few minutes or seconds.
.
.
.
.
===
Here is the story from within the lot description about Eliaberg's failed bidding and eventual purchasing of The Unique 1873-CC No Arrows Dime auctioned by Stack's Bowers in August 2012.
located here:
https://auctions.stacksbowers.com/lots/view/3-309WT/1873-cc-liberty-seated-dime-no-arrows-ms-65-pcgs-secure-holder
===
.
.
Numismatic Gallery scheduled an auction of the collection formed by Charles M. Williams for June 1950. (Williams's 1804 silver dollar and 1822 half eagle were sold private treaty.) The seller-consignor requested anonymity, so Numismatic Gallery used the name of dapper American actor Adolphe Menjou to brand the auction. The actor's image added a romantic flare to the pre-sale interest, but the coins created the greatest buzz.
Cataloger Abe Kosoff listed the many first-class rarities as showstoppers in the auction, including an 1876-CC twenty-cent piece, and an 1894-S Barber dime. The wild card in the sale was the 1873-CC No Arrows dime -- Kosoff struggled to give it proper classification; he grappled with establishing a pre-sale price estimate for it.
For all of the other prestigious coins in the auction, he had relatively recent prices realized. For the 1894-S Barber dime, for instance, Kosoff noted that the World's Greatest Collection specimen in 1945 had brought $2,350. Accordingly, he set his pre-sale estimate in the 1950 Menjou auction at $2,500. He followed this same line of reasoning for all the other attention-getters in the sale.
But how could he use this strategy for the No Arrows dime? The last public price realized for it, $170, was recorded 35 years earlier. Kosoff knew its value had appreciated significantly since then. Writing 20 years after the Menjou auction, Kosoff recalled that before he published the catalog for it, he had set the pre-sale estimate at $2,000. Phone calls from irate clients, however, caused him to cut that number in half by the time his company mailed the catalogs. Still, the $1,000 estimate brought complaints from collectors, who reminded Kosoff that the current price guide listed the 1873-CC No Arrows dime's value at $350, which Kosoff considered totally unreasonable, especially if his inference about the coin's unique status was legitimate.
Kosoff knew of one man in the country who wanted that dime more than any other person did. Louis E. Eliasberg, Sr., who by then had surpassed just about all other numismatists in history in terms of the completeness of his collection, needed the No Arrows dime, and another coin in the Menjou sale, the 1853-O Without Arrows and Rays half dollar, to achieve something no one else had ever achieved.
Eighty-eight lots before the 1873-CC No Arrows dime's turn, Numismatic Gallery offered an 1894-S Barber dime. Interestingly, Kosoff stated that it was the "rarest dime at any of the mints." It's not clear if he meant to say it had the lowest mintage figure of any dime minted in the U.S. or if he meant it was the rarest dime by survival count. It would have been difficult for Kosoff to support the latter claim, even though he had estimated that "about 7 are known to exist." Because 88 lots later he raved about the rarity of the 1873-CC No Arrows dime. He didn't call it unique, as Raymond had done in 1915, but he came close. He did not just limit its rarity to the context of the dime series; he declared it was among the rarest of all U.S. coins. He placed it in company with the 1804 Draped Bust silver dollar and the 1913 Liberty Head nickel. "In fact," he reminded everyone, "these [last two coins mentioned] have been offered several times in the past few years." But when, he asked, was the last 1873-CC No Arrows dime offered? Then he started naming famous collections that did not have the rare dime from Carson City: Boyd, Neil, Stickney, Higgy. He said, "You'll have to search far and wide to find another." He declared that the next owner of the dime would "own a coin the equal of which will probably never appear." Kosoff's prose in this coin's description epitomizes the emotions of a man in the presence of greatness.
A packed house gathered at the auction gallery down the street from Kosoff and Kreisberg's Wilshire Blvd. office in Beverly Hills, at 8:00 p.m. sharp on Thursday June 15, 1950, to witness what promised to be a memorable night. The highest price realized, leading up to the 1873-CC No Arrows dime, was $1,850, for the 1894-S Barber dime, which was a little disappointing since it had fallen 26 percent short of Kosoff's $2,500 pre-sale estimate.
Kosoff then called Lot 399, the 1873-CC No Arrows dime. As he remembered it 20 years later, Kosoff said the "bidding opened at about $1,100 and went rapidly to $2,000 [when Eliasberg jumped in], to $2,500, $3,000, $3,500; Eliasberg bid $3,500 [James] Kelly $3,600, Eliasberg to $3,625; Kelly went to $3,650," and "then silence -- Eliasberg was dropping out."
Writing 25 years later, Eliasberg described his experience at the Menjou auction:
"When the Adolphe Menjou catalogue came out in 1950, I flew to California to buy the 1853-O Half Dollar/no arrows, no rays, and an 1873-CC Dime/no arrows. I attempted to purchase the Dime [before the auction] at twice the value they estimated it to be worth, and thereby avoid a trip to California, but they declined. I made the trip and I bid many times what I thought the Dime was worth, but failed to buy it. In fact, I was so provoked ... I did not attend the second session [the following night] to bid for the [1853-O] Half Dollar."
Joseph Stack, a partner in Stack's of New York, with whom Eliasberg had conducted many transactions, stayed for the second session that Friday evening and bought the 1853-O Without Arrows and Rays half dollar, for $890, for his client, who had caught the next flight back to Baltimore. With the purchase of the 1853-O half dollar, Eliasberg still lacked the one coin needed to complete his immortal collection.
Five months passed and, in November 1950, Sol Kaplan wrote to Eliasberg and asked him what he would pay for the dime. Eliasberg, who was brooding over his unpleasant auction experience and also grieving over the loss of his wife to cancer in December 1949, responded gallantly that he would pay $4,000. Kaplan shipped the coin and Eliasberg sent a check. What should have happened in June came to pass on November 7, 1950. Eliasberg had achieved the goal he had set for himself many years earlier.
The dime remained in the Eliasberg family's possession for 46 years, under the patriarch's supervision until his death in February 1976, and then another 20 years in the custody of his younger son, Richard A. Eliasberg.
===
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
we are here for you about the dubloon bro
I love this comment!!!
So do I. I don't know why, but it makes me happy!
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
Because we’ve all been there...
Thanks! Great info. I've added these coins to create a new thread.
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1054892/ultimate-rarities-in-the-top-collections/
A few additional collectors are included: Boyd, Carter, Farouk, Newcomer, and Simpson.
What about the unique 1943 D copper Lincoln cent ?
Is this considered an error coin?
The following is from PCGS:
https://www.pcgs.com/news/pcgs-certified-1943-d-bronze-cent-sold-for-17-million
@wondercoin
In the following page, you indicate that in addition to the 1976 No-S Proof Ike, there are possibly 1 or 2 more 20th century unique, non-error coins. Can you identify those?
Also, what is your thought on the 1943-D Bronze Cent being an error coin as mentioned by PCGS?
https://www.pcgs.com/top100/coin4
I haven't included it on my list of top collectors mapping yet, because the coin is so new only a few would have had an opportunity to own it by being alive after the coin was minted, but I want to think of a way to include it.
Zoins. I’m on the road right now, so I don’t have all my notes and backup with me. But, two other Unique 20th Century super rarities that come to mind are the 1907 Peso struck in 90% silver (impounded in a Manila museum) and the 1907 Peso struck in 80% silver (in private hands). I believe my son Justin, myself and Justhavingfun (RIP) wrote about these two unique coins in the series of articles we published on pcgs.com in 2018.
The 1976 Proof Eisenhower Dollar is the only Ty 2 Silver dollar known to exist for the bicentennial of our country. The other near 5,000,000 specimens struck in silver for the bicentennial are Ty 1 silver dollar proofs. So, after nearly (50) years, the known mintages of Ty 1 vs Ty 2 1976 silver dollar proofs currently stands at roughly 5,000,000 to 1. The Ty 2 “presentation piece” was struck in Philadelphia so, of course, it has No S mintmark. But, this coin is often more commonly referred to as the 1976 No S Proof Dollar.
There usually isn’t a week that goes by without me being contacted by one or more collectors and folks simply in the general public who believe they have found the second 1976 Ty 2 proof silver dollar. Usually, they come across a No S 1976 Ty 2 coin when they inherit their parents or grandparents coin collections. But, it is not uncommon for waitresses, pastors and others to contact me who received a coin as a tip or a donation.
I try to take almost all the calls and explain to folks that they likely have one of the millions of Ty 2 mint state examples that exist without the S mintmark. I try to educate them on mint state vs. proof and for those that insist that they have the “real thing”, I suggest that they first purchase a 1976 proof set from their local coin shop to see what a proof Ike dollar looks like with the S mintmark for comparison. If necessary, I also direct them how to contact PCGS to submit their coin for authentication and they assure me when they receive the good news from PCGS that they have the real thing, that I will be hearing back from them. I have obviously never heard back from anyone as of yet.
There are a few interesting YouTube presentations on the No S Ike dollar that I see on the Internet as well.
Wondercoin
The 1943 D copper cent was not mistakenly struck. It was clandestinely minted and was found in a mint employees estate
and consigned to a Stacks auction.
Isn’t the 1958 DDO a rare coin ? Last time I looked it was in a PCGS Set Registry
I don’t think the 1976 no s Eisenhower Dollar is included in any Set Registry
I don’t think the 1976 no s Eisenhower Dollar is included in any Set Registry
It’s only in (2) significant registry sets at the moment - The Top 100 Moderns (where it has been since the registry set opened about a decade ago and the set has not been updated ever since it began) & the Complete Ike Dollar set, Mint State & Proof with major Varieties. It may be added to more sets at any time if, and when, the request is ever made.
Wondercoin